ALBERTA HEALTH: Fee Hike Suit Can Proceed as Class Action---------------------------------------------------------The Edmonton Journal reports that a class-action lawsuit, whichdisputes dramatic fee hikes at nursing homes in 2003, can proceedonce again after the Court of Queen's Bench threw out a Novemberchallenge by Alberta Health Services.

Justice Sheila Greckol, in a decision filed Dec. 19, directed thehealth authority to pay the costs of the non-profit Elder Advocateof Alberta Society and the other plaintiffs.

In May 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled their class-actionsuit could proceed after it heard arguments that substantial feehikes at nursing homes in August 2003 were used to subsidize basichealth-care costs that should have been covered by the government.At the time, the province increased fees for a semi-private bed toC$42 a day from C$12, while the cost of a private bed rose to C$48from C$15.

ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL: May Face Class Action Over Patient Neglect--------------------------------------------------------------Laura Donnelly, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a hospitalhas been accused of leaving dying patients to starve in acatalogue of cases of alleged neglect.

Lawyers are planning a "class action" on behalf of 23 families whocontacted them with "shocking" claims of indignities and the mostbasic failings in care.

They believe the families who have contacted them so far aboutcare at Alexandra Hospital, in Redditch, West Midlands, mayrepresent "the tip of the iceberg".

The number of potential claims make it the biggest group action ofits type since hundreds died in appalling conditions at StaffordHospital, leading to a public inquiry which is expected tocriticize the wider failings of the NHS and of regulators'failures to protect patients, when it reports next year.

The cases against Alexandra Hospital include:

* A 35-year-old father-of-four who his family say wasted awaybecause staff did not know how to fit a feeding tube

* A retired NHS worker who died after allegedly being leftwithout food or crucial heart medication

* A man who fell into a coma after contracting E.coli,apparently from a filthy catheter

* The claims include allegations that vulnerable patients wereleft to starve when trays were left out of reach, while othersleft in soaking bedsheets

Official statistics show death rates at Worcestershire AcuteHospitals trust, which runs the hospital, were 10% higher than thenational average in 2010/11 -- meaning there were 239 deaths morethan would be expected.

The legal action comes amid increasing concern about the standardsof care for hospital patients and failures to protect thevulnerable.

Earlier this year, a report by the Health Service Ombudsmancondemned the service for its inhumane treatment of the elderly.

The investigation found hospitals were failing to meet their mostbasic needs, with many left hungry, unwashed or given the wrongdrugs because of the "casual indifference of staff".

Legal firm Leigh Day & Co, which previously won the largest-evergroup claim against a single NHS hospital for 119 victims of theStafford hospital scandal, said they believed that the familieswho had contacted them so far about the Alexandra Hospital mayrepresent "the tip of the iceberg".

The legal action facing the trust comes after the Care QualityCommission (CQC) published the findings of spot check visits to100 hospitals to inspect care of the elderly in October.

Half were found to be failing basic standards.

"Major concerns" were found at two -- including AlexandraHospital, where failings were so fundamental that it was warned inMay that it was breaking the law.

So many patients on its wards were left at risk of dehydrationthat doctors were forced to prescribe water for them.

Since then, almost two dozen families have contacted lawyers aboutcases. While some have been fighting almost ten years for anexplanation from the hospital, other cases in the group occurredas recently as July.

Emma Jones, a human rights lawyer for Leigh Day & Co, said manyhad given up hope of getting answers until they saw the CQC reportinto Alexandra Hospital.

Lawyers will say that the treatment of many patients was sodegrading, and so compromised their privacy, that it constitutedan abuse of the Human Rights Act.

The firm has been instructed by 17 families, and is consideringsix further cases.

Miss Jones said: "The common themes we have encountered includepatients being left dehydrated and starved -- feeding tubes notgiven to patients who could not swallow normally, food beingplonked out of reach of patients, and others left to eat withtheir fingers because they weren't given cutlery.

"Buzzers went unanswered, several patients were left sitting insoaking bedclothes for hours, or in their own faeces."

Chris Grande, a father of four, was just 35 when he died, fourdays after being admitted to the hospital last Christmas withbreathing problems.

His widow Sonya says her husband, who suffered from spinalmuscular atrophy, was left to starve because hospital staff didnot know how to fit a feeding tube for him after he was admittedon Boxing Day.

His body was pumped with fluid, to address dehydration, but nursesfailed to heed her warning that her husband's condition meant hewould quickly weaken without food, she said.

Mrs. Grande, 42, said her husband was stripped of his basicdignity. Nurses left him to lie in his own faeces for more thanthree hours, ignoring her pleas for help to turn him, to clean himup, she said.

When an elderly man fell from the next bed staff were slow to helphim up, and no one checked for any head injury, she said.

Two hours later, a nurse returned and found him dead, only tolaugh, said Mrs. Grande, and comment that the dead body was notwhat she had come looking for.

The former personal assistant said she felt "haunted" by herhusband's screams, as his condition worsened.

She said: "He said it felt like his body was burning, he wasscreaming out, it was unbearable. He could barely speak for thepain."

The widow believes that errors meant fluid was being pumped intohis skin tissue, instead of into his vein, causing the agony.A do not resuscitate decision was taken by the medical team --against the couple's wishes.

Mrs. Grande said: "They starved my husband to death. Chris spenthis last few days in agony, and terrified of the people who weresupposed to be helping him."

Frank Bushell, 63, was admitted to the hospital in May, for a hipoperation. Within a week the retired publican was lying in acoma, and suffering multiple organ failure, triggered by aninfection of E.coli -- caught from a dirty catheter.

After 10 days unconscious, and several weeks in hospital, he wasfinally discharged in a wheelchair. Nurses stood chatting as hiswife Patricia, who is just 4 foot 8 inches tall, tried to help the6 foot man into a taxi, she claims.

Mrs. Bushell said: "After all we had been through, the nurses didnot lift a finger. We were desperate to get him out of thathospital, it was not a safe place.

"It seems incredible that a man can go into hospital for a hipoperation, and be left battling for his life."

Reginald Iliffe was admitted to the hospital aged 85 with problemsswallowing, three days after being diagnosed with cancer, whendoctors said they expected him to live for 18 months. Thepensioner, who had worked for the NHS all his life, was leftunwashed, and often lying in soaked sheets, his daughters say.

For the last seven days of his life Mr. Ileffe was given neitherfood nor the crucial heart medication he had been taking for 20years, they say -- a criticism which was confirmed by anindependent investigation by the Health Service Ombudsman.

Nine days after being admitted to hospital, the former dentaltechnician died of a heart attack.

For more than six years, his bereaved daughters say they have beenfighting for an explanation from the hospital.

They say that although hospital doctors had prescribed the heartmedication for Mr. Iliffe, as well as nutrition supplements,nurses gave him neither, on the grounds he was nil by mouth, whenthey should have arranged for an intravenous drip.

Joan Checkley, now 61, said she and her sister had been fearfulabout the care he was getting and checked his medical chart everyday -- but did not know until after his death that codes indicatedmedication was not being administered.

Mrs. Checkley, who works as an NHS receptionist, said they werehorrified by the "degrading" way her father was treated.

"In nine days they never washed him, and they wouldn't even givehim a bottle -- they would just tell him to go in the sheets," shesaid.

"Dad had every faith in the health service. He worked for the NHSall his life and he loved it, working in dental hospitals inLiverpool and Birmingham.

"He would have never have believed they would let them down theway they did."

In November, the CQC published a further report, which said returnvisits found the hospital to be meeting the basic standards ondignity and nutrition it had failed in May.

Helen Blanchard, the trust's Director of Nursing and Midwifery,said: "We actively encourage patient and family feedback and wherethere is any indication that standards of care fall short of thehigh standards we expect all staff to deliver we will alwaysaddress it."

As a tenant of an AMLI Management dwelling unit in Chicago,Illinois, Ms. Johnson says she gave a $704 security deposit forthe Unit in June 2009. In violation of the RLTO, she argues, theDefendant paid her no interest on her security deposit either bycash or by credit against rent after she moved out in 2011.

Ms. Johnson used to rent a dwelling unit from the Defendant inChicago.

AMLI Management is the lessor of the Plaintiff's unit and over 200other rental units in Chicago known as the AMLI 900.

BANK OF AMERICA: Jump Legal Group Files Foreclosure Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Ohio Attorneys John Sherrod and W. Mark Jump, of Jump Legal Group,have filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America onbehalf of Ohio homeowners who have been wrongfully foreclosed onby Bank of America despite never missing a single payment. Thesuit alleges Bank of American improperly diverted homeowners'trial loan modification payments.

The initiation of the class action lawsuit came after Bank ofAmerican foreclosed on a Canal Winchester, Ohio, couple who wereshocked when a process server appeared at their door withforeclosure papers. Attorney John Sherrod relays, "the Woodruffsare responsible homeowners, who like many people, were hurt by thebad economy. They contacted Bank of America and entered into aloan modification agreement. They made every payment on time andthen Bank of America foreclosed on them anyway. Joe and Jenniferhave two young children and they worry what this stress is doingto them."

There are potentially hundreds of other homeowners in Ohio who areliving through this same nightmare. "At this point we havehandled countless loan modifications where the loan applicationand agreements have been mishandled by the banks. This isprobably one of the more egregious scenarios emerging in themarketplace," W. Mark Jump said.

What should you do if you have had an experience similar to theWoodruff's? Attorneys John Sherrod and Mark Jump urge homeownersto contact them at 614-454-4307 or to visit Jump Legal's Web siteand fill out a brief questionnaire about your experience.

Jump Legal Group -- http://www.legaldebtsolutions.com-- is a Columbus, Ohio law firm dedicated to helping people keep theirhomes and get a fresh start using the protection of ForeclosureDefense, Loan Modifications, Debt Settlement, and Bankruptcy. Formore than a decade, Jump Legal Group has helped thousands ofpeople in Ohio.

BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Remains Pending-----------------------------------------------------------Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s appeal from an order remanding a classaction lawsuit to a state court remains pending, according to itsDecember 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint captionedLina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.et al., was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & NobleBooksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State ofCalifornia making the following allegations against defendantswith respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble storeslocated in the State of California from the period of August 5,2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2)failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waitingtime penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure toprovide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure toprovide itemized wage statements. The claims are generallyderivative of the allegation that these salaried managers wereimproperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hourlaws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the numberof any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought onbehalf the purported class. The Company was served with thecomplaint on August 11, 2011. On August 30, 2011, the Companyfiled an answer in state court, and on August 31, 2011, it removedthe action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action FairnessAct of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On October 28, 2011, thedistrict court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the actionback to state court, over the Company's opposition. The Companybelieves that the district court remanded the action in error. OnNovember 7, 2011, Barnes & Noble petitioned the Ninth Circuit foran appeal of the district court's remand order. The case iscurrently in state court, pending the Ninth Circuit's decisionregarding the Company's petition for permission to review theremand order.

BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on IPO Securities Suit Appeal-----------------------------------------------------------Barnes & Noble, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs'motion to dismiss an appeal in the consolidated lawsuit arisingfrom the Company's initial public offering, according to theCompany's December 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedOctober 29, 2011.

The class action lawsuit known as In re Initial Public OfferingSecurities Litigation filed in April 2002 (the Action), named overone thousand individuals and 300 corporations, includingFatbrain.com, LLC (Fatbrain), a former subsidiary of Barnes &Noble.com, and its former officers and directors. The amendedcomplaints in the Action all allege that the initial publicoffering registration statements filed by the defendant issuerswith the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the onefiled by Fatbrain, were false and misleading because they failedto disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving excesscompensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of itscustomers, and that some of those customers agreed to buyadditional shares of the defendant issuers' common stock in theaftermarket at increasing prices. The amended complaints alsoallege that the foregoing constitutes violations of: (i) Section11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "1933 Act") bythe defendant issuers, the directors and officers signing therelated registration statements, and the related underwriters;(ii) Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (the "1934 Act") by the same parties; and (iii) the controlperson provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts by certain directorsand officers of the defendant issuers. A motion to dismiss by thedefendant issuers, including Fatbrain, was denied.

After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffsand defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding (MOU), outlining a proposed settlement resolving theclaims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers.Subsequently, a Settlement Agreement was executed between thedefendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which areconsistent with the MOU. The Settlement Agreement was submittedto the court for approval, and on February 15, 2005, the judgegranted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Federal Appeals Court for the SecondCircuit (the Second Circuit) issued a decision reversing theDistrict Court's class certification decision in six focus cases.In light of that decision, the District Court stayed allproceedings, including consideration of the settlement. In January2007, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before theSecond Circuit, which was denied in April 2007. On May 30, 2007,plaintiffs moved, before the District Court, to certify a newclass. On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an orderterminating the Settlement Agreement. On October 2, 2008,plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the class certification motion. OnOctober 10, 2008, the District Court signed an order granting therequest.

A Settlement Agreement in principle, subject to court approval,was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs,insurers and underwriters, and executed by the Company.Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court onJune 10, 2009, and final court approval of the settlement wasgranted on October 5, 2009. Pursuant to the settlement, nosettlement payment will be made by the Company. Since that time,various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors onan interlocutory basis. On August 25, 2011, the District Courtruled that the last remaining appellant of the decision grantingfinal approval of the settlement has no standing to object to thesettlement. This last remaining appellant has appealed thedistrict court's decision, and plaintiffs have moved to dismissthe appeal.

BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filedagainst Big Lots, Inc. by a California resident (the "Caronmatters"). The first was filed in the Superior Court ofCalifornia, Orange County. This action is similar in nature tothe "Seals" matter, which enabled the Company to successfullycoordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Courtof California, Los Angeles County. The second and third matters,filed in the United States District Court, Central District ofCalifornia, and the Superior Court of California, RiversideCounty, respectively, allege that the Company violated certainCalifornia wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods andother wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover, ontheir own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide classconsisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed restbreaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination,reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, andattorneys' fees and costs. The Company believed these two mattersoverlapped and the Company successfully consolidated the two casesbefore the United States District Court, Central District ofCalifornia. The Company believes the remaining allegations alsooverlap some portion of the claims released through the classaction settlement in the Espinosa matter, which was settled in2008. On August 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice,the plaintiffs' class certification motion. On April 21, 2010,the Court granted, with prejudice, the Company's motion to denyclass certification. Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiffremain before the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to theprobability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron mattersor the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Companyintends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations leviedin these lawsuits; however, the ultimate resolution of thesematters could have a material adverse effect on its financialcondition, results of operations, and liquidity.

BIG LOTS: Limited Discovery in "Gromek" Suit Still Ongoing----------------------------------------------------------In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filedagainst Big Lots, Inc. in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, alleging that the Company violatedthe Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant storemanagers as exempt employees ("Gromek matter"). The plaintiffsseek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individualswho were similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation,as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees andcosts. The Company answered the plaintiffs' complaint on August12, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motionrequesting that the Court 1) conditionally certify a class ofthen-current and former assistant store managers employed duringthe prior three years, excluding those employed in California orNew York, and 2) authorize the plaintiffs to send a notice of thislawsuit to those putative class members to allow them to join thislawsuit. On December 17, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs'motion.

On February 11, 2011, the Company filed a motion to sever theplaintiffs' claims and transfer those claims to various venuesaround the country. On February 22, 2011, the Court denied theCompany's motion without prejudice and granted limited discovery.The Company is currently engaged in the limited discovery grantedby the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to theprobability of a loss contingency resulting from the Gromek matteror the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company saysit intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegationslevied in this lawsuit; however, the Company currently believesthat the Gromek matter will be resolved without a material adverseeffect on its financial condition, results of operations, orliquidity.

BIG LOTS: Parties in "Martinez" Class Suit Engaged in Discovery---------------------------------------------------------------Parties in the class action lawsuit, known as the "Martinez"matter, are engaged in discovery, according to Big Lots, Inc.'sDecember 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In February 2011, a class action complaint was filed against theCompany in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,alleging that the Company violated certain California wage andhour laws ("Martinez matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, onbehalf of the named plaintiff and a California statewide classconsisting of all other similarly situated current and formerwarehouse employees, damages for alleged missed meal periods,unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid overtime, unpaid vestedvacation, unpaid wages at termination, untimely payment of wages,noncompliant wage statements, failure to keep accurate payrollrecords, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company answered theplaintiff's complaint on March 25, 2011. The parties are engagedin discovery.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to theprobability of a loss contingency resulting from the Martinezmatter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. TheCompany intends to vigorously defend itself against theallegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimateresolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect onits financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

BIG LOTS: Remaining Claims in "Avitia" Suit Dismissed in October----------------------------------------------------------------The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, dismissedthe claims of the remaining plaintiffs in the "Avitia" classaction lawsuit on October 4, 2011, according to Big Lots, Inc.'sDecember 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against theCompany in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,alleging that the Company violated certain California wage andhour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exemptemployees ("Avitia matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recoverdamages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wagesat separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees andcosts. In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the originalcomplaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf andon behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated,filed an amended complaint that removed the class andrepresentative allegations and asserted only individual actions.On July 14, 2011, the Company entered into a confidentialsettlement agreement with one of the plaintiffs and the courtdismissed that plaintiff's claims on July 29, 2011.

In September 2011, the Company entered into confidentialsettlement agreements with the four remaining plaintiffs and thecourt dismissed those plaintiffs' claims on October 4, 2011.

The Company says the Avitia matter was resolved without a materialadverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations,or liquidity.

BIG LOTS: "Seals" Suit Remains Pending in California----------------------------------------------------In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against BigLots, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Los AngelesCounty, alleging that the Company violated certain California wageand hour laws by misclassifying California store managers asexempt employees ("Seals matter"). The plaintiffs seek torecover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all otherindividuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaidovertime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination,improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, andattorneys' fees and costs. On October 29, 2009, the Court denied,with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification motion. OnJanuary 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. OnApril 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trialCourt's decision denying class certification. A trial date forthe Seals matter has been set for April 23, 2012.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to theprobability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit orthe estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company intendsto vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in thislawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter couldhave a material adverse effect on its financial condition, resultsof operations, and liquidity.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

BIG LOTS: Still Defends "Sample" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.-------------------------------------------------------------Big Lots, Inc. continues to defend a wage and hour class actionlawsuit in California, according to the Company's December 7,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filedagainst the Company in the Superior Court of California, AlamedaCounty, alleging that the Company violated certain California wageand hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage andhour claims ("Sample matter"). The plaintiff seeks to recover, onher behalf and on behalf of a California statewide classconsisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid mealperiod premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid businessexpenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment ofwages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating,and attorneys' fees and costs. The Sample matter is similar innature to the actions comprising the Caron matters.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to theprobability of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matteror the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Companyintends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations leviedin this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this mattercould have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,results of operations, and liquidity.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plavix Suits Will Not Proceed as Class Suits------------------------------------------------------------------Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog reports that Plavix lawsuits willnot become a class action lawsuit for discovery purposes becausethere are not enough cases to justify an MDL, according to an MDLpanel of judges.

The court did not suggest that the Plavix cases were not viablelawsuits. The court also believed that the Plavix personal injuryor wrongful death cases, do involve the same important commonfactual issues concerning the development, manufacture, regulatoryapproval, labeling, and marketing of Plavix. But the panel foundthat centralizing the cases in a pseudo class action (which iswhat an MDL is) would delay the progress of the long-pendingactions in the District of New Jersey where most of the cases havebeen filed. Moreover, the court indicated that the "limitednumber of actions and relatively few involved counsel also weighagainst centralization." In other words, the benefits of gettingall of the lawyers together and performing common discovery wouldnot be furthered significantly with an MDL.

BUDGETEXT CORP: Faces Suit for Not Paying Termination Pay---------------------------------------------------------Donald Keys, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Budgetext Corporation, an Arkansas corporation, andDoes 1 through 10, Case No. 3:11-cv-06384 (N.D. Calif.,December 16, 2011) seeks payment, including wages and benefits, inconnection with the termination of the Plaintiff's and other classmembers' employment following the closure of Budgetext's plant inFayetteville, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff asserts that offsite employees like him wereentitled to 60 days notice of termination, and to wages andbenefits for that period, which Budgetext did not pay.

Mr. Keys is a resident of Upland, California. He worked as anaccount representative at Budgetext from July 2007 untilOctober 24, 2011.

Budgetext is an Arkansas corporation and has done business in theNorthern District of California. The Plaintiff does not know thenames and identities of the Doe Defendants.

CARRIER IQ: Sued For Unauthorized Tracking of Users' Info---------------------------------------------------------Laureen Briggs, as an Individual and on behalf of the Class v.Carrier IQ, Inc.; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 4:11-cv-06338 (N.D. Calif.,December 15, 2011) asserts that at issue is whether Carrier IQviolated certain laws applicable to members of the Class byplacing its patented Carrier IQ software on the wireless phone andhandsets of the members of the Class, including the Plaintiff, andusing that software to track the information that the users of thephone and handset entered through their keystrokes -- all withoutthe consent or knowledge of the Plaintiff and members of theClass.

The Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco, California, and ownsan iPhone4, which is operating on AT&T's cellular network.

Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, is a software developer andmanufacturer. HTC is a Taiwan corporation and cellular devicemanufacturer located in Taoyuan, Taiwan. HTC America, asubsidiary of HTC, is a Washington corporation and sells itsproducts throughout the United States. Samsung is a Koreancompany and sells its products throughout the United States.

CHINA MEDICAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Class Action in New York--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federalsecurities class action (11 Civ 9297) in the United StatesDistrict Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of allpersons who purchased American Depository Shares of China MedicalTechnologies, Inc., between November 26, 2007 and December 12,2011, inclusive. This class action is brought under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the Companyand certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Medical securitiesduring the Class Period, you have until February 17, 2011 to askthe Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copyof the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.comTo discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle atrrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include theirmailing address and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements and or failed to disclosethat: (1) the Company's acquisition of Beijing Bio-EkonBiotechnology Co. Ltd. was from a third party seller connected toChina Medical's Chairman, Wu Xiaodong; (2) the Company overpaidapproximately $20 million to acquire BBE; (3) the Company'sacquisition of BBE involved the use of fraudulent shell companies;(4) BBE was suffering operating losses prior to the acquisition;(5) the Company overstated accounts receivables in order toinflate sales and net income; (6) the Company's reported profitmargins were inflated; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, theCompany's statements were materially false and misleading at allrelevant times.

On December 6, 2011, Glaucus Research Group published an analystreport revealing, in part, that China Medical's Chief ExecutiveOfficer was embezzling money through sham acquisitions, theCompany's reported profits and net income were inflated as theywere inconsistent with comparable competitors, and the majority ofthe Company's account receivables were in excess of 120 days,indicating that its reported revenues were inflated. On thisnews, China Medical's shares declined $0.81 per share, or nearly24%, to close on December 6, 2011 at $2.57 per share, on unusuallyheavy trading volume.

On December 13, 2011, China Medical disclosed that the Companyintends to implement a debt restructuring plan to improve itsbalance sheet. On this news, China Medical's shares declined$0.43 per share, or nearly 13%, to close on December 13, 2011 at$2.87 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust classlitigation. The firm has offices in New York, Chicago andWashington, D.C.

CHRYSLER LLC: Brake Defect Suit Moved to Bankruptcy Court---------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bransford at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that U.S. DistrictJudge Dennis M. Cavanaugh granted a magistrate's recommendation onDec. 16 to move a class action claim against Chrysler Group LLCalleging brake defects to New York bankruptcy court, saying thatcourt could best determine whether Chrysler was responsible forwarranties covering the vehicles.

Judge Cavanaugh overruled the objections of the vehicle owners,agreeing with U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy Waldor's Oct. 3recommendation that a bankruptcy judge should determine whetherChrysler took on the warranties of former company Chrysler LLC ina sale, according to Law360.

Chrysler LLC and 24 affiliates on April 30, 2009, sought Chapter11 protection from creditors (Bankr. S.D.N.Y (Mega-case), LeadCase No. 09-50002). Chrysler hired Jones Day, as lead counsel;Togut Segal & Segal LLP, as conflicts counsel; Capstone AdvisoryGroup LLC, and Greenhill & Co. LLC, for financial advisoryservices; and Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, as its claims agent.Chrysler has changed its corporate name to Old CarCo following itssale to a Fiat-owned company. As of December 31, 2008, Chryslerhad $39,336,000,000 in assets and $55,233,000,000 in debts.Chrysler had $1.9 billion in cash at that time.

In connection with the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler reached anagreement with Fiat SpA, the U.S. and Canadian governments andother key constituents regarding a transaction under Section 363of the Bankruptcy Code that would effect an alliance betweenChrysler and Italian automobile manufacturer Fiat. Under theterms approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the company formerly knownas Chrysler LLC on June 10, 2009, formally sold substantially allof its assets, without certain debts and liabilities, to a newcompany that will operate as Chrysler Group LLC.

Fiat has a 20% equity interest in Chrysler Group.

The U.S. and Canadian governments provided Chrysler with$4.5 billion to finance its bankruptcy case. Those loans are tobe repaid with the proceeds of the bankruptcy estate'sliquidation.

* * *

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on June 6, 2011,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'B+' corporatecredit rating to Chrysler Group LLC. The rating outlook is stable."At the same time, we assigned our issue-level rating toChrysler's $4.3 billion senior bank facilities ('BB') and $3.2billion second-lien notes ('B'). The recovery ratings are '1' and'5'. The company recently completed this financing," S&P stated.

DE BEERS: Appeals Court Upholds $295M Settlement in Antitrust Suit------------------------------------------------------------------Joseph R. Saveri of the national plaintiff's law firm LieffCabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on December 20 announced thatthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opiniontoday upholding the settlement in the class action litigationagainst the South African company De Beers, the world's largestdiamond supplier, for allegedly conspiring to monopolize the saleof rough diamonds.

The appellate court affirmed an order by U.S. District JudgeStanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey that approved asettlement under which De Beers agreed to pay $295 million to U.S.jewelry makers, retailers, and consumers who purchased diamondsand diamond jewelry beginning in 1994. The settlement alsoprevents De Beers from continuing its illegal business practicesand requires De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courtto enforce the settlement.

"T[he] decision reaffirms that class actions are an integral partof our civil justice system and serve as an effective tool toremedy injuries when corporations fix prices, restrict supply,stifle innovation, and harm smaller companies, entrepreneurs,governments, and consumers," stated Saveri, co-counsel for theclass of diamond purchasers. "The Court held that smallprocedural issues will not bar the prosecution or settlement ofclaims on behalf of consumers found throughout the country who allbought the same product that was sold at illegally set highprices. Global companies will continue to be held accountable inthe United States for their illegal conduct, and consumers cancontinue to rely on our antitrust laws and Courts to fight backand obtain justice."

The significance of the decision includes:

* The opinion clarifies the law with respect to classcertification standards generally and in antitrust cases inparticular. It similarly clarifies the law with respect to classcertification requirements in the settlement context.

* In the antitrust area, the opinion reiterates the propriety ofcertification of proceeding on a class basis. Where the claim isthat there is a market wide restraint, like price-fixing or cartelbehavior, and persons buy the price-fixed product, either directlyor indirectly through middlemen, the predominance and otherrequirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureare readily satisfied. There is no requirement that plaintiffsprove that every person is injured. Issues regarding proof ofdamages are no impediment to class certification in this context.

* Variances in state law are similarly no impediment because thefocus of answering the questions that state laws pose are commonbecause they focus on the conduct of defendants and the fact thatinjured class members suffered injury when they purchased theproduct. There is no requirement that the injury be uniform. Theopinion shows that this conclusion is entirely consistent with theU.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wal-mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes,131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). With respect to settlement classes, theresult is even more clear because the manageability requirementunder Rule 23 is inapplicable in the settlement context.

* Circuit Judge Scirica provided an important concurring opiniondiscussing the case in the wider context of evolving law onsettlement classes. Justice Scirica specifically noted that inantitrust cases "common issues tend to predominate because a majorfocus is the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of the defendantand its downstream effects on plaintiffs."

You can read a copy of the appellate court's opinion. To learnmore about the De Beers Diamonds antitrust litigation please visithttps://diamondsclassaction.com/

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorneylaw firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, whichincludes representing companies, governments, and consumers harmedby anticompetitive conduct. Each year since 2003,The National LawJournal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs'law firms in the nation.

DONALDSON CO: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Filter MDL---------------------------------------------------------------Donaldson Company, Inc. is still awaiting approval of apreliminary agreement settling class action lawsuits filed in 2008alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the Company,engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S.Customers for aftermarket automotive filters, according to theCompany's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October31, 2011.

The settlement will fully resolve all claims brought against theCompany in the lawsuits and the Company does not admit anyliability or wrongdoing. The settlement, which has been accruedfor by the Company, is still subject to Court approval and willnot have a material impact on the Company's financial position,results of operations or liquidity.

As previously reported, on March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, afilter distributor, filed a lawsuit alleging that 12 filtermanufacturers, including the Company, engaged in a conspiracy tofix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarketautomotive filters. The U.S. cases have been consolidated into asingle multi-district litigation in the Northern District ofIllinois. The Company denies any liability and has vigorouslydefended the claims raised in these lawsuits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SECfiling.

E&B GIFTWARE: Agrees to $550T Fine Over Defective Fitness Balls---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced thatit has reached a settlement with E&B Giftware LLC (E&B), ofYonkers, N.Y., resolving CPSC staff allegations that E&B failed toreport a defect with its fitness balls. In settling this matter,E&B has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $550,000.The settlement agreement[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12060.pdf]has been provisionally accepted by the Commission.

CPSC staff alleged that E&B's subsidiary, EB Brands, LLC (EBBrands), knew of 25 incidents related to the defective balls asearly as 2007, but failed to immediately inform the Commission asrequired by federal law. Some of these incidents led to consumersbeing injured. By October 2008, when EB Brands reported to theCommission, EB Brands knew of at least 44 incidents involving thefitness balls.

EB Brands sold three million of the fitness balls from May 2000through February 2009. They were recalled[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09196.html]in April 2009. At that time, there were 47 reports of the fitness ballsunexpectedly bursting when overinflated by consumers, resulting ininjuries, including a fracture and bruises.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors and retailers toreport to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaininginformation reasonably supporting the conclusion that a productcontains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or failsto comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, E&B denies CPSC staff allegationsthat it knowingly violated the law.

FOOT LOCKER: Still in Mediation with "Pereira" Suit Parties-----------------------------------------------------------Foot Locker, Inc. is still engaged in mediation with the plaintiffin the "Pereira" lawsuit, according to the Company's December 7,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a numberof lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing variousclass action allegations under federal or state wage and hourlaws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal andrest breaks, and uniforms.

The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiffalleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours inviolation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007. In hiscomplaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctiverelief, and attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2009, theCourt conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.During the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately81,888 current and former employees of the Company offering themthe opportunity to participate in the class action, and 5,027 haveopted in.

The Company was a defendant in an additional seven purported wageand hour class actions that assert claims similar to thoseasserted in Pereira and seek similar remedies. With the exceptionof Hill v. Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, all ofthese actions were either commenced in federal district court orthe Company has subsequently removed them to federal districtcourt. On February 25, 2011, the Company filed a motion with theUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the"Panel") to consolidate those cases pending in federal court andany similar case hereafter filed to a single case under the UnitedStates district court and otherwise consolidating these actionsfor coordinated pretrial proceedings. On May 26, 2011, the Panelgranted the Company's motion to consolidate those cases withPereira. During the first quarter, one of these cases was settledfor an amount that was not material to the Company and theremaining cases are in discovery stages of proceedings. In Hillv. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motionfor certification of an opt-out class covering certain Illinoisemployees only. The Company has filed a motion for leave toappeal.

The Company is currently engaged in mediation with plaintiff inPereira and his counsel in an attempt to determine whether it willbe possible to resolve these cases. Meanwhile, the Company isvigorously defending them. Due to the inherent uncertainties ofsuch matters, including the early stages of certain matters, theCompany is currently unable to make an estimate of the range ofloss.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legalproceedings pending against the Company or its consolidatedsubsidiaries, including Pereira and related cases would have amaterial adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financialposition, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.

GRUNENTHAL: Thalidomide Class Action to Be Heard in Australia-------------------------------------------------------------Peta Carlyon, writing for ABC News, reports that Australianthalidomide victims have won the right to have a landmark classaction heard on home soil.

Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe, who was born without limbs, isleading the Australian action.

The drug's manufacturer, Grunenthal, has been fighting to have thecase heard in Germany.

The company has never been successfully sued in its homeland.

But the Victorian Supreme Court dismissed Grunenthal'sapplication.

Ms. Rowe's family pleaded with the drug's maker to stop delayingthe class action.

Her lawyers have warned that the company plans to raise moreissues which could further delay proceedings.

They say it will not be an easy path ahead.

Her father, Ian Rowe, says it is urgent the case now proceed assoon as possible.

"Let Lyn have her day in court. Please don't cause any more delayjust for delay's sake," he said.

"Time is not on our side. Wendy and I are getting older now, I'malmost 80.

"We really need to know how Lynette will be provided for when wecan no longer do it ourselves."

Ms. Rowe cried silently as her father spoke.

Her lawyer, Peter Gordon, said more than a hundred thalidomidesurvivors are now involved in the class action, and more areexpected to come forward.

He described thalidomide as a "medical and pharmaceuticaldisaster".

Mr. Gordon and a legal team have travelled to Germany in recentweeks to gain access to large volumes of company documents.

He said what they have found could influence future casesoverseas.

"We do believe that a lot of the evidence and the disclosuresabout what Grunenthal knew are probably matters which have nevercome to light outside Germany, or in the English speaking world,prior to now," he said.

"There may be some new facts that come to light that may be ofinterest to all thalidomiders, not just in Australia, but in manyother countries where it was distributed."

Grunenthal has paid out many millions of dollars to thalidomidevictims in a number of countries, including in the United Kingdom.

But the company has never been successfully sued in Germany andhas settled court cases before they reached an adverse judgment.

The Australian class action is expected to be heard in Melbournenext year.

Since at least 2007, the Defendants manufactured, packaged,marketed and sold at least 200 Jason Natural brand Products asbeing "All Natural" or "Pure Natural" despite the fact theycontain artificial or synthetic ingredients, Ms. Littlehalealleges. She contends that while the lawsuit is not a personalinjury case and no personal injury claim is being asserted, it isnoteworthy that Sodium Benzoate and other synthetic ingredients inthe Defendants' so-called "All Natural" or "Pure Natural" Productsare potentially harmful.

Ms. Littlehale is a resident of Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania.Throughout the entire Class Period, she has been very concernedabout and tries to avoid using personal care products that are notnatural, such as skin creams and lotions that contain synthetic orartificial chemical ingredients. Hence, she is willing to and haspaid a premium for products that are all natural and has refrainedfrom buying their counterparts that were not all natural.

INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York------------------------------------------------------------On December 5, 2011, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York against theCompany and certain of its executive officers, the Companydisclosed in its December 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false andmisleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages forthe purported class of purchasers of Company common stock duringthe period from February 17, 2011, through November 10, 2011. TheCompany believes these claims are without merit and intends todefend this lawsuit vigorously.

Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Lear Corporation --http://www.lear.com/-- is one of the world's leading suppliers of automotive seating systems and electrical distribution andpower management systems. The Company's world-class products aredesigned, engineered and manufactured by a diverse team ofapproximately 75,000 employees at 205 facilities in 36 countries.Lear's common shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchangeunder the symbol [LEA].

Lear Corp. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on July 7, 2009(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-14326). Attorneys at Kirkland &Ellis LLP, served as the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel. In November2009, Lear emerged from bankruptcy protection.

In an unpublished opinion, a panel of three judges claimed that aCalifornia federal court made a mistake when it was found thatLouis Vuitton had not been able to prove that it could be facing$5 million in claims. The complaint filed was for $1,000 for eachviolation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which allows acourt to impose penalties of $250 for the initial violation andthen $1,000 for every violation thereafter.

"Because the amount in controversy could be as much as $1,000 foreach subsequent violation and it is undisputed that there weresubstantially in excess of 5,000 credit card transactions, thepreponderance of evidence shows that the amount in controversyexceeds $5 million," the panel said.

Louis Vuitton attempted to move the suit to California federalcourt in July. The case was remanded back to state court by U.S.District Judge M. James Lorenz after claiming that the amount ofmoney involved in the lawsuit did not surpass the jurisdictionalthreshold of $5 million. Judge Lorenz also ruled that neither theallegations nor the evidence offered by Louis Vuitton that anyclass member was subject to more than one violation at a time.

The class in the lawsuit will include all customers fromCalifornia who had their personal information recorded if theymade a purchase during the previous year. This purchasing periodincluded more than 5,000 transactions. Louis Vuitton, in oralarguments, told the court of appeals panel that if the company hadmade over 5,001 credit card transactions, then they would face a$1,000 fine per transaction. This would then lead to damagesexceeding $5 million.

The Class Action Fairness Act requires that there be at least 100members of the class in the lawsuit, which Louis Vuitton failed toshow, according to the plaintiffs. The panel did say that thecompany had over 5,000 transactions for the period in question,which means there would be at least 100 separate credit cardcustomers during that time.

The panel for the Ninth Circuit includes Judges William A.Fletcher, Barry G. Silverman and Kim McLane Wardlaw.

The name of the case is Deanna Morey v. Louis Vuitton NorthAmerica, case number 11-56916, in the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit.

MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Defend "INFUSE" Suit in Minnesota-------------------------------------------------------------On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' ReliefAssociation filed a putative class action complaint againstMedtronic, Inc. and certain current and former officers in theU.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, allegingviolations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleges that thedefendants made false and misleading public statements concerningthe INFUSE Bone Graft product which artificially inflatedMedtronic's stock price during the period. On August 21, 2009,plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaintexpanding the class. Medtronic's motion to dismiss theconsolidated complaint was denied on February 3, 2010, andpretrial proceedings are underway.

The Company says it has not recorded an expense related to damagesin connection with this matter because any potential loss is notcurrently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range ofloss, if any, that may result from this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 28, 2011.

MEDTRONIC INC: Fully Paid Plaintiffs of Fidelis-Related Claims--------------------------------------------------------------Medtronic, Inc. said in its December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended October 28, 2011, that it fully paid the plaintiffs of theremaining claims arising from its Sprint Fidelis family ofdefibrillation leads.

On October 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwidedistribution of its Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) family ofdefibrillation leads. Approximately 4,000 lawsuits regarding theFidelis leads were filed against the Company, includingapproximately 47 putative class action lawsuits reflecting a totalof approximately 9,000 individual personal injury cases.Approximately 2,800 of the lawsuits were commenced in Minnesotastate court and approximately 1,200 were consolidated for pretrialproceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-DistrictLitigation (MDL) rules. On January 5, 2009, the MDL courtdismissed with prejudice the master consolidated complaint forindividuals and the master consolidated complaint for third-partypayors on grounds of federal preemption. The state court judgedismissed the state court cases on similar grounds on October 22,2009. The federal opinion was affirmed on appeal and the stateappeal was dismissed.

The Company announced on October 14, 2010, that it had enteredinto an agreement to settle the pending lawsuits as well ascertain unfiled claims subject to opt-out rights by bothplaintiffs and the Company, including the Company's right tocancel the agreement. The parties subsequently reached anadjusted settlement agreement pursuant to which Medtronic waivedits right to cancel the agreement and agreed to pay a total of$221 million to resolve over 14,000 filed and unfiled claims.Accordingly, the Company recorded an expense of $221 millionrelated to probable and reasonably estimated damages under U.S.GAAP in connection with these matters in fiscal year 2011.Subsequent to October 28, 2011, the Company fully paid theplaintiffs.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in theOntario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. On October 20, 2009,that court certified a class proceeding, but denied classcertification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrialproceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expenserelated to damages in connection with that matter because anypotential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimableunder U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonablyestimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from thismatter.

NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Limits Class in Labor Law-Violations Suit--------------------------------------------------------------A California court has determined that Plaintiff BernadetteTanguilig could not represent employees, who are subject to NeimanMarcus, Inc.'s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limitingthe putative class action to those associates who were employedbetween December 2004 and July 15, 2007, according to theCompany's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedOctober 29, 2011.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction andEquitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,individually and on behalf of other members of the general publicsimilarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPGCapital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC. On July 12, 2010, alldefendants except for the Company were dismissed withoutprejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in theSuperior Court of California for San Francisco County. Thiscomplaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originallyfiled by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Companyhas engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code andBusiness and Professions Code, including without limitation 1)asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing to providemeal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly calculatingdeductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and 4) failingto provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion tocompel Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in theCompany's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a classaction in that case. The court then determined that Ms. Tanguiligcould not represent employees who are subject to the Company'sMandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putativeclass action to those associates who were employed betweenDecember 2004 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of theCompany's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

The Company says it intends to continue vigorously defending itsinterests in these matters. Currently, the Company cannotreasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from thesematters. The Company will continue to evaluate these mattersbased on subsequent events, new information and futurecircumstances.

The amounts owed are for employees of OVHS&E, Ohio Valley MedicalCenter and East Ohio Regional Hospital who received medicalservices at other facilities.

The lawsuit alleges OV Health System Parties failed to adequatelyfund the health system plan "because they are presentlyexperiencing severe financial difficulties."

The portion of the suit against OVHS&E was dismissed in December2010 by U.S District Judge Frederick P. Stamp Jr., who ruled OVHS&E and its affiliates have no contractual obligation to pay formedical services rendered to its employees. Additionally, JudgeStamp said only The Health Plan was responsible for providinghealth care for participants of the benefit plan, and thus thelawsuit has continued against that company alone.

However, Dr. Wack and his attorney, Mark Colantonio, who is alsothe plaintiffs' attorney in the class-action suit, filed their ownsuit in Marshall County Circuit Court seeking repayment of moneyowed to Dr. Wack. Though Health Plan officials argued they wereunable to pay the bills because of a separate failure to pay byOVHS&E, Mr. Colantonio said Circuit Court Judge Mark A. Karldeemed The Health Plan responsible for paying Dr. Wack an amounthe estimated to be more than $3,000.

A ruling on liability and damages, as well as interest andattorney fees, has yet to be determined, and no date has been setto review that portion of the case. However, Mr. Colantonio saidthe message sent by the court is clear.

"The Health Plan sets up a network of physicians in this area, andthese physicians provide services," he said. "When The HealthPlan does this, they must make sure the doctors are paid for theirservices."

Additionally, Mr. Colantonio said while The Health Plan may havebeen owed money by OVHS&E, that fact does not eliminate The HealthPlan's responsibility.

"Regardless of whether OV is paying them, they have to payphysicians no matter what," he said.

In the meantime, Mr. Colantonio said the class action suit hasbeen held up in federal court by procedural motions and appeals.He said there is no time table for a resolution.

OVMC said in a statement on Dec. 16 they have continued to improvetheir operations and made every effort to significantly reducetheir liabilities to vendors and providers over the past year.Calls to The Health Plan were not immediately returned on Dec. 16.

In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending classaction litigation and other currently pending legal proceedings isnot expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company'sfinancial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

The Plaintiff asserts that he paid a total of $49.95 for a ticketto attend the Stone Temple Pilots' live performance at the StonePony in Asbury Park, New Jersey, that was scheduled for July 26,2011. However, Mr. Fabozzi alleges that he was refused entry intothe concert because the Ticket had already been used by anotherpatron. Subsequent to July 26, StubHub refunded the $49.95 thathe paid for the Ticket.

Mr. Fabozzi is a citizen of New Jersey.

StubHub is a Delaware corporation and its principal place ofbusiness is in San Francisco, California. StubHub operates anonline marketplace for the resale of tickets to sporting events,concerts, and theater shows.

TINSLEY ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime-----------------------------------------------------------Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reportsthat a Mesquite healthcare worker has filed a lawsuit against heremployer in an effort to obtain payment of overtime wages.

Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, DeborahBuxton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,filed suit against Tinsley Associates, doing business asExceptional Home Care.

In the suit filed on Dec. 13 in the Eastern District of Texas,Tyler Division, Ms. Buxton states that the defendant did not payits healthcare workers any overtime wages at one and one-halftimes their regular hourly rate.

She claims she has complained about the non-payment but allegesthe defendant has not taken any action to correct the FLSAviolation.

The defendant is also accused of retaliation against Buxton byterminating her employment on Oct. 31.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.